Friday, April 22, 2016

Wisdom to remember

Thursday, April 21, 2016. Chaos and violence continue, Hillary lies
about Iraq again, the US government approves the deaths of more
civilians in Iraq, Barack Obama laments the lack of a political
solution, and much more.

Hillary Clinton appeared on ABC's GOOD MORNING AMERICA this morning to
make clear that she is not just a liar, she's a supreme liar.

Was Bill Clinton sincere in his public remarks?

Who knows?

He appeared to be.

Hillary just comes off calculating and insincere.

Because she can't act so the world is left with the real Hillary.

Which is so very unimpressive.

Asked by Nora Miller of San Francisco what her greatest regret was, Hillary stumbled along:Well, I guess my-my greatest regret, uhm, was, uh, voting to give
President Bush authority in Iraq. Uhm, it did not turn out the way I
thought it would based on what he had said, uh, and I regret that. I've
said it was a mistake and, uh, obviously, uh, it's something I-I wish
hadn't turned out the way it did.

Stumbled along.

The media has, as usual, cleaned up the quote of a War Hawk to make them
sound more decisive. They've taken out her "uh"s and "uhm"s. They did
the same for another former Secretary of State -- Colin Powell when discussing his blot.

"I regret we didn't get healthcare [reform] back in 1993 or '94, because we'd really be much further down the road," she said, according to AOL.com

She also previously named the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya.

“My
biggest, you know, regret is what happened in Benghazi. It was a
terrible tragedy, losing four Americans — two diplomats — and now it’s
public, so I can say two CIA operatives,” Clinton said, according to Politico.

She says whatever she thinks will save her own skin.

She's a liar, a compulsive one, apparently.

Another way to respond to the latest lie?

Note last month's photo op of Hillary with the man she says caused her "greatest regret."

Hillary Diane Clinton: Well, I
guess my-my greatest regret, uhm, was, uh, voting to give President Bush
authority in Iraq. Uhm, it did not turn out the way I thought it would
based on what he had said, uh, and I regret that. I've said it was a
mistake and, uh, obviously, uh, it's something I-I wish hadn't turned
out the way it did.

She says he's the reason for her greatest regret and yet just last month she was all over him as though she were in heat.

While few Clinton supporters are still willing to argue her support
for the war was a good thing, many try to minimize its significance by
referring to it as simply a “mistake.” But while it may have been a
terrible decision, it was neither an accident nor an aberration from
Clinton’s generally hawkish worldview.It would have been a “mistake” if Hillary Clinton had pushed the
“aye” button when she meant to push the “nay” button. In fact, her
decision — by her own admission — was quite conscious.

The October 2002 war resolution on Iraq wasn’t like the 1964 Gulf of
Tonkin resolution authorizing military force in Vietnam, which was
quickly passed as an emergency request by President Lyndon Johnson when
there was no time for reflection and debate. By contrast, at the time of
the Iraq War authorization, there had been months of public debate on
the matter. Clinton had plenty of time to investigate the
administration’s claims that Iraq was a threat, as well as to consider
the likely consequences of a U.S. invasion.Also unlike the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which was disingenuously
presented as an authorization to retaliate for an alleged attack on U.S.
ships, members of Congress recognized that the Iraq resolution
authorized a full-scale invasion of a sovereign nation and a subsequent
military occupation. Clinton had met with scores of constituents, arms
control analysts, and Middle East scholars who informed her that the war
was unnecessary, illegal, and would likely end in disaster.But she decided to support going to war anyway. She even rejected the
advice of fellow Democratic senator Bob Graham that she read the full
National Intelligence Estimate, which would have further challenged some
of the Bush administration’s claims justifying the war.It was not, therefore, simply a “mistake,” or a momentary lapse of
judgment. Indeed, in her own words, she cast her vote “with conviction.”

As late as February 2007, Clinton herself refused to admit that her
vote for the war resolution was a mistake. “If the most important thing
to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said
his vote was a mistake,” she said while campaigning for president,
“then there are others to choose from.” She only began to acknowledge
her regrets when she saw the polling numbers showing that a sizable
majority of Democrats opposed the decision to go to war.

She is a liar, struggling against Senator Bernie Sanders for the
Democratic Party's presidential nomination. On one side, Hillary who
voted for the Iraq War and endorsed it and applauded it for years. On
the other side? Bernie who voted against it.

Or maybe you prefer to divide them up as one who can only see things as
they are as opposed to someone who can see things as they could be?

Yeah, Hillary suffers from George HW Bush's 'vision thing.'

It's a point US Vice President Joe Biden made today:“I like the idea of saying, ‘We can do much more,’ because we can,” Biden told The New York Times in an interview published Thursday. Clinton,
a former Obama administration official, has criticized Sanders on the
trail for his bold proposals, suggesting that his policies aren’t
pragmatic.“I don’t think any Democrat’s ever won saying, ‘We
can’t think that big — we ought to really downsize here because it’s not
realistic,’” Biden said. “C’mon man, this is the Democratic Party! I’m
not part of the party that says, ‘Well, we can’t do it.’”

The Obama administration
confronted setbacks Thursday in its efforts to defeat the Islamic
State, with reports that Russia is moving more military equipment into
Syria to support President Bashar Assad as a truce collapsed, and
President Obama acknowledging that political paralysis in Iraq is impeding U.S.-led efforts to defeat the militant group.

Inside of Iraq, there are understandable concerns about Iranian
influence in the Iraqi government at a time when the Iraqi government is
also critical for us fighting ISIL. It was very important I think for
us to describe our assessment that Prime Minister Abadi is in fact
effectively fighting against ISIL and trying to reach out to Sunnis
inside of Iraq, while acknowledging that there are significant problems
in terms of government stability inside of Baghdad. And that’s a reason
for us not to withdraw, but rather to get more involved in helping to
stabilize areas like Anbar, where we’ve not cleared out ISIL but the
towns that they were governing have been left devastated. If we want
Sunni communities to be able to rebuild themselves and to get back into
the lives they were leading before ISIL took over, then we’re going to
have to help the Iraqi government respond. We’ve been able to secure additional commitments with respect to the
counter-ISIL campaign more broadly. With respect to direct help to the
Iraqi government, what I recommended was that we wait to assess how the
current government turmoil in Iraq plays itself out over the next couple
of weeks before we make final decisions about how useful particular
offers of assistance will be. Although, already what we’ve seen is, for
example, the government of Kuwait over the last year has deferred
payments that were required under the U.N. resolution between Iraq and
Kuwait. That’s worth a couple of billion dollars to the Iraqi
government. And we described our efforts to make sure that in addition
to the military assistance that we’re providing Iraq, that we’re also
focusing on these stabilization functions.

And there was this.

But frankly, right now in Baghdad, there’s some big challenges in terms
of Prime Minister Abadi forming a new government -- or a new cabinet.
Until that’s settled, I think it’s important for us to make sure that
any additional stabilization dollars that are put in are going to be
effectively spent.

Let's repeat that second part:

But frankly, right now in Baghdad, there’s some big challenges in terms
of Prime Minister Abadi forming a new government -- or a new cabinet.
Until that’s settled, I think it’s important for us to make sure that
any additional stabilization dollars that are put in are going to be
effectively spent.

We'll also note this section.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Greg Jaffe.

Q I was going to ask, since you just spoke about Prime Minister
Abadi, how concerned are you about his hold on power? Are there things
that the GCC partners can do to help solidify his government? And then,
did you guys talk about a plan B in Syria if the cessation of
hostilities falters? And then lastly, I was just going to ask, have you
contemplated adding additional Special Forces in Syria to bolster the
counter-ISIL fight? And what might it take for you to make that
decision?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Good. On the first item, I'm concerned. I think
Prime Minister Abadi has been a good partner for us. But interestingly
enough, right now in Baghdad, the challenges within the government don't
fall along the usual lines of Kurdish-Sunni-Shia. There's actually
significant dissension and disputes even among the Shia power blocks.

Obviously, ultimately it's up to the Iraqis to make these decisions.
It's not up to us, it's not up to the Iranians, it's not up to GCC
countries. It's up to the Iraqi people to determine the government that
they form.

We do think, however, that it is vital for the health and stability of
Iraq that the cabinet and the makeup of government is finalized and
stabilized. And we've been urging them to get the job done. And we
have contacts with all the various factions and parties, saying to them
they have to take the long view and think about the well-being of the
country at a time when they're still fighting Daesh, Mosul is still
under ISIL control; at a time when, because of low oil prices, they've
got challenges with respect to their budget. There's a dam that needs
to be fixed. They've got a lot on their plate. Now is not the time for
government gridlock or bickering.

Obama, in meetings with Saudi King Salman,
the ruling emirs of Qatar and Kuwait and others, appealed for more
financial and political support to help Iraq. Yet the leaders appeared
reluctant to invest until Iraq’s government overcomes a political crisis
and better integrates Sunnis into the process.

In a
shift in tone from just a day earlier, Obama said the U.S. and its Gulf
partners should wait to see whether Iraq can resolve the crisis before
committing more aid. He warned that the paralysis is impeding U.S.-led
efforts to defeat the Islamic State group and reconstruct war-damaged
Iraq.

Though he wants to see political reconciliation -- or he claims he does
-- Barack only pushes for bombing and more bombing. Today, the US
Defense Dept announced:

Strikes in IraqAttack, bomber, fighter, ground attack and remotely piloted
aircraft and rocket artillery and conducted 21 strikes in Iraq,
coordinated with and in support of Iraq’s government:-- Near Baghdadi, five strikes struck three separate ISIL
staging facilities and destroyed an ISIL vehicle-borne bomb and damaged
an ISIL vehicle.-- Near Rutbah, a strike destroyed an ISIL vehicle bomb.-- Near Fallujah, two strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL bed-down location.-- Near Haditha, a strike destroyed an ISIL tunnel system.-- Near Hit, two strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed 27 ISIL boats and three ISIL fighting positions.-- Near Mosul, six strikes struck five separate ISIL tactical
units and destroyed seven ISIL assembly areas, three ISIL vehicles, an
ISIL supply cache and an ISIL command-and-control node.-- Near Qayyarah, a strike destroyed an ISIL vehicle bomb.-- Near Sinjar, a strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and
destroyed an ISIL machine gun, an ISIL fighting position and an ISIL
assembly area.-- Near Sultan Abdallah, two strikes struck an ISIL tactical
unit and destroyed an ISIL vehicle, an ISIL supply cache, an ISIL
assembly area and an ISIL rocket rail.

Task force officials define a strike as one or more kinetic
events that occur in roughly the same geographic location to produce a
single, sometimes cumulative, effect. Therefore, officials explained, a
single aircraft delivering a single weapon against a lone ISIL vehicle
is one strike, but so is multiple aircraft delivering dozens of weapons
against buildings, vehicles and weapon systems in a compound, for
example, having the cumulative effect of making those targets harder or
impossible for ISIL to use. Accordingly, officials said, they do not
report the number or type of aircraft employed in a strike, the number
of munitions dropped in each strike, or the number of individual
munition impact points against a target. Ground-based artillery fired in
counterfire or in fire support to maneuver roles is not classified as a
strike.

Since last fall, without any public acknowledgment by the US
government and military, US warplanes have been bombing civilian areas
in Iraq and Syria under loosened rules of engagement, the US Defense
Department announced Wednesday.Under the new rules, US forces may
attack any area considered to have a “non-combatant value” of 10, that
is, a likely fallout of fewer than 10 civilian deaths.Given the
current volume of airstrikes, the expanded rules of engagement imply
that the Pentagon may murder thousands of civilians every month.

This
March alone, US warplanes dropped nearly 2,000 bombs on Iraq and Syria,
an increase over the 1,700 bombs dropped by US forces during the
previous March. Last November, the US-led coalition set a new record for
a single month, dropping nearly 3,300 bombs.

Jill Stein is running to be the Green Party's presidential candidate.Maybe she'll get it, maybe she won't.But she presents herself as a peace candidate.So what about Iraq, Jill?How are you going to defeat the Islamic State?That's not sarcasm.They can be defeated.With diplomacy, mainly.And Jill could argue that point.And should.But she's silent on Iraq.And that's why I don't take her seriously as a candidate.For goodness sake, even Donald Trump is speaking out against the Iraq War.Even Donald Trump.

Jill Stein wants to be the Green Party's presidential candidate.She was the 2012 candidate.I didn't support her in 2012.She was too weak.I don't see any strength implant having taken place since then, but I
thought I'd explain how she could win my vote (providing she gets the
party's presidential nomination).Talk Iraq.That's what she should do first.Second?Talk Iraq.The Iraq War is the greatest crime of the 21st century.Does she really want to let Donald Trump be the only one calling out the Iraq War?Jill needs to talk Iraq.She needs to talk universal tuition and student loan forgiveness via the money spent on Iraq.We can't afford universal tuition and student loan forgiveness?Well look how much we are spending on the never ending war on Iraq.She needs to talk about the need to follow the Constitution.She can connect that to Iraq.The Iraq War was illegal.Barack's latest phase takes place without Congressional authorization.We must follow the Constitution.Jill needs to talk Iraq.